http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  81 of 1998

PETITIONER: Sakatar Singh & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2004

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

The first appellant before us is the father of the second  appellant and the third appellant is the wife of the first appellant.   These appellants and three others who are sisters of second  appellant herein  were charged  for offences punishable under  Sections 306 and 498A read with  Section 34 IPC before the  Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala who after trial acquitted   accused Nos. 4 to 6 while convicted the appellants herein for  offences  punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC  read with Section 34 IPC. The first appellant Sakatar Singh was  sentenced  for offence punishable under Section 306  for four  years RI and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default  in  payment of  fine to undergo further  RI for three months, while he  was  sentenced for an offence punishable  under Section  498A for  two years RI and a fine of Rs.200/- and in default in payment of   fine to undergo further RI for  one month.  The second appellant   Kirpal Singh was sentenced for seven years RI for offence  punishable  under Section 306 IPC and a fine of Rs.500/- and in  default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three  months, he was also sentenced to two years RI under Section  498A IPC and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default in payment of  fine to  undergo further  RI for  one month.    The third appellant  Smt. Joginder Kaur was sentenced to undergo three years RI for  offence under Section 306 and a fine of  Rs.200/- and in default  in payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month.  While  for offence under Section 498A IPC, she was sentenced to  undergo RI  for two years  and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default  in payment of fine to undergo RI for one month. The appellants herein preferred   an appeal before the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh  against the  judgment  and conviction of  the learned  Addl. Sessions Judge,  Ambala  being  Criminal Appeal No. 322-SB/87  and the said  appeal having been dismissed  confirming  the conviction and  sentence awarded on the appellants by the Sessions Court the  appellants are  now before us in this appeal. The prosecution case briefly stated   is as follows:- Deceased Devinder Kaur was married  to second  appellant  Kirpal Singh  in the year 1982 and they had two issues from the  said marriage a girl by name Gurdip  Kaur  who was two years  old and a boy named Bablu aged  nine months on the date of  incident.  The accused persons with their  unmarried daughters  and said  Devinder Kaur with her children were living at  Layalpur Basti  in Ambala City.  The  prosecution  alleges within  two months of the marriage of the second appellant to said  Devinder Kaur  the appellants and their daughters started making  unlawful demand for TV, scooter and fridge which was not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

fulfilled by the  parents of  said Devinder Kaur.  It is also stated   that after the  birth of  the  second child none from the  family of  her in-laws i.e. family  of the accused had come to see her at her   maternal  home situated at Landran because they were not happy  with the  family of Devinder Kaur for not satisfying   their   demands.  The prosecution further alleges  about nine months   prior to the date of incident  which happened to be on  21.5.1986  father of  said Devinder Kaur died  and on  his death the  appellants were  forcing  said  Devinder Kaur  to make  a  demand for share  in the family property and this having not  acceeded to by   said Devinder Kaur she was subjected  to  harassment  and cruelty.  It is the further case of the prosecution   that mother of said Devinder Kaur  (PW-7) had visited the house  of the appellants on 18.5.1986 when she found said Devinder  Kaur in tears and during  her said visit she did not speak to PW-7  since her mother-in-law would not  allow  her to do so.  The   further  case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.1986 between 9  and 10 a.m. in the house of  the appellants  said Devinder Kaur  committed suicide along with her two minor children by   pouring kerosene and burning herself and the children.  The  prosecution alleges that A-1 took the  burnt bodies of the  deceased  to the hospital and information in regard to this  incident was conveyed to the family of Devinder Kaur  through  PW-12 (Ajmer Singh). On hearing the said news, PW-7 and  other members of the family rushed to Ambala and on coming to  know that her daughter and grand children were murdered by the  appellants, the mother of the deceased (PW-7) lodged a  complaint at about 4.00 p.m. on 21.5.1986.  The bodies in  question were  then taken to Landran the village of PW-7 and   cremated there.  It is  also alleged that no member of the  appellants family attended the last rites of the deceased. Based on the complaint lodged by PW-7 though originally  a crime under Section 302 IPC was registered against the  appellants, after investigation  a chargesheet was filed for  offences under Sections  306 and  498A read with Section 34  IPC and during  the course of  the trial the prosecution examined   as many as 16 witnesses out of whom  it relied on  the evidence  of PW-7 mother of the deceased, PW-8 the brother of the  deceased, PW-12 a family friend  of the deceased  and PW-14  the maternal uncle of the deceased to establish the case  of  cruelty and harassment meted out to  said Devinder Kaur   because of which she was forced to commit suicide by burning  herself along with her minor children.  The trial court accepting  the evidence  of  the said  prosecution witnesses found the   appellants guilty as charged while it acquitted  accused Nos. 4 to  6 who were the daughters of  appellant No.1 on the ground that  the  prosecution  had not established its case as against these  appellants. In  appeal as stated above the High Court has agreed  with the  findings of the trial court. Shri Jaspal Singh, learned senior  counsel appearing for the  appellants contended that  the trial court has proceeded on  the  mere ipse dixit  of the four witnesses examined by the  prosecution to  establish the case of alleged cruelty and  harassment  meted out by the appellants to the deceased without  really there being  any legal material to prove the guilt  of the  appellants.  He pointed out as per explanation to Section 498A of  the Indian Penal Code,  ’cruelty’   has been  defined  which  definition also  holds  good for  establishing the guilt  under  Section 306 IPC  and in the instant case  except the fact  that  these witnesses have orally stated  that there was some demand  for TV, scooter and fridge as also demand for  share in the  property of the deceased father, no acceptable material   whatsoever has been  produced by the prosecution to either  establish those facts or to prove that pursuant to  the said  demand  the appellants in any manner committed any act which would  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

have  driven  the deceased to commit  suicide or harassed the   deceased in any manner with  a view to coerce her to meet the  unlawful  demand of the appellants. He submitted that the trial  court did not look into the necessary ingredients of Section 498A  and 306 IPC  while  coming to the conclusion that the appellants  were guilty  of the  offence   charged.  It was the argument of the  learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court obviously  was under an impression that even a legal demand, by itself  without anything more would constitute cruelty which the learned  counsel submits  is wholly erroneous.  The learned counsel also  pointed out that whatever evidence was produced by the  prosecution  to establish  the so-called  illegal demand was  merely hear say and not even admissible  under Section 32 of the  Evidence Act, and none of  the witnesses who spoke  as to the  demand made by the appellants had any personal  knowledge  about the said demand.   Therefore, even in regard to the alleged  demand  accepted by  the trial court  the learned  counsel  submitted the same cannot be sustained because the same is based  on inadmissible  evidence. Coming to the judgment of the High Court which has  confirmed the conviction  and sentence awarded by the trial  court, the learned counsel submitted that  there has been no  application of mind whatsoever by the High Court which is the  first  appellate forum and which is duty bound to re-appreciate   the evidence. He pointed out that a bare reading  of the  judgment   of  the High Court  would  show that the same is nothing but a  copy of  the judgment of the trial court  both in regard to the   narration of facts as also in regard to the findings. Shri Vinay Kumar Garg, learned counsel appearing for the  State  however contended that it is clear from the evidence of PWs  7, 8, 12 and 14 that the appellants had made certain unlawful  demands because of which the deceased committed suicide.  It is  the contention of the learned counsel that once an unlawful  demand is established nothing more is required to be proved that   pursuant to the demand  there was  any  other action or overt act  of  cruelty. On the said basis, learned counsel submitted that the  findings of the courts below being concurrent this appeal is liable  to be dismissed.         Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the records,  we notice that since it is the contention of the appellants that the  High Court being the first court of appeal on facts, has not applied  its mind independently to the facts of the case and it has blindly  copied the findings of the trial court, the appellants have lost the  benefit of right of appeal because of which their case is  prejudiced, we assuming for the time being it to be so, think at this  belated stage a remand is not an appropriate remedy. Therefore,  we will consider the material on record ourselves to re-appreciate  the evidence adduced in this case and determine the guilt or  innocence of the appellants.  The allegations against the appellants of cruelty is primarily  based on the following facts : (1)     That the accused started harassing and ill treating  Devinder Kaur two or three months after the  marriage by demanding Television, Scooter and  Fridge; (2)     The family of the deceased has been paying  money to the deceased in instalments to satisfy  the demands of the appellants. Sometime  Rs.2000/- and sometimes Rs.3000/- were paid for  this purpose; (3)     After the death of the father of the deceased, the  family of the deceased were compelling the  deceased to make a demand for her share in the  family property.  (4)     That after the birth of the second child the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

appellants did not take back the deceased and the  children from her maternal home for nearly 7  months.  (5)     The appellants were not permitting the deceased  to talk to her family members. (6)     When PW-8 brother of the deceased visited her,  the deceased had asked him to arrange funds to  meet the demands of her in-laws and that they  were harassing her because of which she was sad. In law, the prosecution has to prove the fact that the victim  was subjected to cruelty or harassment, and such cruelty should  be one which comes within the explanation to Section 498A  which defines "cruelty".  In the above background, we will now consider the  evidence led by the prosecution to establish the charge levelled  against the appellants. In this process, we will first examine the  letter written by the deceased to her mother. Though this letter  does not mention the date, there is no dispute that the same was  posted on 20.5.1986 which is evident from the postal seal found  on the envelope which would be a date prior to the incident  leading to the death of Devinder Kaur and the children. The  contents of the letter indicates what transpired during her  mother’s visit to her in-laws house and does not anywhere even  remotely indicate any demand made by her in-laws. It only  reflects the attitude of the deceased towards her in-laws and that  she entertained a feeling that her mother was not properly treated  by her mother-in-law during her last visit. The letter also  indicates that while the deceased did not wish that her mother  should visit her in-laws’ place, her brother could do so which is  clear from the following statement in the said letter : "Mother do  not worry about me. I have make up my will power. When I go  angry then I also utter a few things. Mother send brother here,  you need not come because they are after your blood." In the said  letter she also complained against her brother’s wife accepting a  Shagun of Rs.20/- from her mother-in-law and says that the same  should be returned. A reading of the above letter does indicate  that her relationship with her mother-in-law was not good but at  the same time she herself was prone to get angry at times and was  prepared to retort. In our considered opinion, this letter does not,  in any manner, indicate either there was any unlawful demand  from her in-laws or pursuant to such demand there was any  harassment leading to cruelty. In this context, it will be appropriate for us to consider the  contents of two other letters brought on record by the defence.  One such latter is dated 10.3.1986 marked at Ext.DA written by  PW-8 to the husband of the deceased (A-2). Of course, this is a  letter written about two months before the death of the deceased.  At this stage, we must note the fact that PW-8 has denied having  written this letter but PW-7 the mother admits the letter being that  of her son PW-8.  This letter refers to the arrangement of the  marriage of deceased’s brother and requests the appellants to  attend the marriage function. The relevant portion of the letter  reads thus: "You will glad to know that the marriage of Paramjit  has been fixed for 23.3.1986, Sunday. You may keep ready. We  will drop letter. Pay my respect to Maserji and Massiji." It also  asked A-2 to bring his sister (the deceased) and her children. This  letter indicates two facts that as on 10.3.1986 the relationship  between the parties was still cordial and as on that date deceased  and her children were in her in-laws house. The next letter which  is also relied upon by the defence is marked Ex.DB dated  20.2.1986 is from the deceased to her husband (A-2) written  about three months prior to the date of incident. The contents of  this letter show that A-2 was corresponding with her and she was  replying his letter though belatedly because of the illness of her  daughter. She also requested him to reply and indicates that she

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

was eagerly waiting for his reply. She also indicates in the said  letter that she was planning to come back on Wednesday or  Thursday next. The said letter further indicates that A-2 wanted  her to come back within 4 or 5 days but she had overstayed in her  paternal home. Ex.DA and DB prove one other fact that between  20.2.1986 and 10.3.1986 the deceased and her children had  returned to the matrimonial home and the prosecution case that  for 7 months after the birth of the second child, the deceased was  not brought to her matrimonial home is wholly false. That apart  none of these letters indicate that there was any demand from the  appellants for TV, scooter or fridge.  It is in this background, the prosecution primarily relies on  the evidence of PWs.7 and 9, that is, the mother and brother to  establish the prosecution case.  We will now examine whether such allegations stand  proved by the evidence of these two witnesses. PW-7 the mother in her evidence states that her daughter  was married to A-2 about 4 years prior to the date of her evidence  and the accused started harassing and ill treating the deceased two  to three months after the marriage by demanding TV, scooter and  fridge. She also says that the deceased was asked by the accused  to arrange for funds and pursuant to such demand she had been  sending money in instalments of Rs.2000/- sometimes and some  other time Rs.3000/-. She further says that when her elder son  PW-8 visited the house of the accused he had to assure them that  he would arrange for their every demand item by item after the  crop matured for harvesting. She then makes an omnibus  statement that Devinder Kaur (the deceased) was being harassed  by her husband Kirpal Singh accused, by father-in- law Sakatar  Singh, by mother-in-law Joginder Kaur and by her sister’s-in- law, namely, Palvinder, Jasvinder and Kulvinder. She also makes  a statement that the accused person had demanded the deceased  to stake a claim for a share in her father’s property which the  deceased refused to do.  In the cross-examination when she was asked how she came  to know of these demands of the appellants for TV, scooter,  fridge and money, she stated that she came to know the same  from the letters written by her daughter but she failed to produce  those letters because of which an adverse inference will have to  be drawn. Further nowhere in her entire evidence she has stated  that the deceased at any point of time had personally told her  about these demands. In the absence of such material, more so  because of the fact this witness herself does not say that the  deceased told her orally about these demands, and the alleged  letters having not been produced, this part of her evidence will  have to be treated as not based on personal knowledge but as an  opinion of hers, and as such the same is inadmissible in evidence.  Therefore, the prosecution cannot rely upon such evidence to  base a conviction. Even the demand of the in-laws in deceased’s  father’s property was not told to PW-7 by the deceased but PW-7  was allegedly told about this by Ajmer Singh PW-12, but PW-12  does not support PW-7 in this regard. That apart in the cross- examination when it was pointed out to her that she had not  mentioned in her previous statement about this demand for  inheritance in deceased father’s property, she stated that she had  told the Investigating Agency, but the same was not found in the  said statement of hers. It is also clear from her evidence in the  cross-examination that she had not even told the Investigating  Agency about the demand for money in instalments as spoken to  by her in her examination-in- chief. It is to be noticed further that  even though she in her examination-in-chief stated that when  PW-8 visited the deceased a few days before the incident in  question and the deceased had complained to PW-8 about the  demand by her in-laws, PW-8 in his evidence does not support  PW-7 in this regard. From the above it is clear that the evidence

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

of PW-7 is of no assistance to the prosecution to establish the fact  that there was any demand, much less an unlawful demand at all  by the appellants on the deceased. The trial court, in our opinion,  seriously erred in placing reliance on inadmissible part of PW-7’s  evidence and ignoring the omissions and improvements  established by the defence in the course of cross examination of  PW-7. We will now consider the evidence of PW-8 who is the  brother of the deceased who in his evidence has stated that the  accused had started harassing and mal-treating the deceased for  more dowry and that they were complaining that she had not  brought anything significant in the dowry and they expected TV,  scooter and fridge in the dowry. While considering this part of his  evidence, it is necessary to note that he in the latter part of his  evidence has stated that these demands were made by the accused  persons after his father died which was on 21.7.1985 (20 days  before the birth of second child of the deceased Devinder Kaur  which was on 10.8.1985). Whereas PW-7 in her evidence had  stated that the demands for TV, Scooter and Fridge was made two  months after the marriage of the deceased. We have noticed that  the marriage of the deceased took place sometime in the year  1982 and the deceased died on 21.5.1986 and father of the  deceased had died 9 months prior to the death of the Devinder  Kaur which was on 21.7.1985. If the statement of PW-7 in regard  to these demands for TV, Scooter and Fridge is true the same was  sometime in the year 1982 itself, whereas as per PW-8 the said  demand was after August, 1985, that is, after the death of the  father. This contradiction in regard to the timing of the demand is  a material contradiction which goes to the root of the prosecution  case and the same is not considered by the trial court. This  witness then states that none of the appellants, including A-2 the  husband of the deceased, visited the deceased for nearly 7 months  after the birth of her second child. This allegation which indicates  neglect or a mental torture of the deceased by the indifferent  attitude of A-2, in our opinion, is per se unbelievable because of  the letter Ex.DA to which we have already referred wherein this  witness himself wrote to A-2 requesting him and other members  of the family to attend the wedding of his brother Paramjit. This  letter was addressed on 10.3.1986 and in the said letter he  specifically says to convey his respect and love to his sister and  children and to bring them to the wedding which means by that  time the deceased was already in her in-laws house and the  allegation of PW-8 that the deceased was not taken back from her  maternal home for 7 months after the delivery of the second child  by A-2 stands falsified. Then again this witness is not very sure  whether various demands made by the appellants were towards  dowry or towards the birth of a male child because in one part of  his examination he states : "The reason for their in-difference was  that on the birth of the male child, they should be given  something by the parents of Devinder Kaur. We asked the  accused party to have patience and that we would give something  after the crop ripens and the harvests done". From this part of the  evidence of PW-8, we get an impression that demand for TV,  scooter and fridge was because of the birth of a male child and  not as a part of dowry. This discrepancy between the evidence of  PW-7 and PW-8 is also not considered by the courts below. It is  to be seen from the evidence of this witness that he was on  regular visiting terms with his sister and practically every Sunday  or alternate Sunday he used to visit her. We find it extremely  difficult to accept the post death allegation of these witnesses for  the unlawful demands when the relationship between them was  such that the appellants were invited for every function in the  house of PW-7 and they attended those functions. PW-8 was a  regular visitor to the house of the accused and inspite of all that  the appellants would indulge in such activity of cruelty and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

harassment which would compel the deceased to commit suicide.  From the above discussion of the evidence of this witness, we are  unable to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has  established the allegation of demand made by these appellants.  The next witness whose evidence requires consideration by  us is PW-13, Kulwant Singh, a family friend. He in his evidence  stated that during his life time the father of the deceased used to  tell him that the deceased Devinder Kaur was sad and unhappy  after the marriage and she was being harassed and ill-treated on  account of bringing insufficient dowry. He also stated before the  court that the deceased’s father used to tell him that the accused  were demanding more dowry that is TV, scooter, fridge etc. The  defence had objected to this answer of the witness on the ground  that this witness was trying to prove the statement of a deceased  person. This objection was overruled by the Court on the ground  that the witness was deposing about the fact from his knowledge  which he had acquired in his routine life. We do not agree with  the trial court that what was being spoken to by this witness in  regard to harassment and ill treatment on account of insufficient  dowry by the witness was a fact which he had known personally,  because he was actually referring to the statement of the deceased  father of Devinder Kaur and not to a fact based on his personally  acquired knowledge. After the said objection was raised, this  witness tried to import some personal knowledge by stating that  he had an occasion to meet the deceased Devinder Kaur at Banur  in Rajpura Tehsil of Patiala Distt. where per chance he met the  deceased when deceased mentioned to him that she was on way  to her in-laws but was not sure what was in store for her there.  This witness also says that the deceased further mentioned that  after the death of her father and after mutation of her father’s  property was sanctioned, the bitterness between the sides had  increased. We have no doubt that this is a statement made by the  witness only to improve upon his earlier inadmissible statement.  This is clear from the answer given by this witness in the cross- examination when he states that the police did not enquire from  him in the hospital at the time of death of Devinder Kaur nor he  had volunteered to mention any of the above facts stated by him  in his examination-in-chief to the police at that time. It is also  relevant to note that his statement was recorded by the police for  the first time on 25.7.1986 nearly two months after the incident.  He also admits in the cross-examination that he does not  remember the day, date or the month when father of the deceased  mentioned to him about the ill treatment of his daughter. Even the  fact of the deceased Devinder Kaur meeting this witness at Banur  in Rajpura Tehsil is also highly doubtful because in the cross-  examination he states that at the time when he met the deceased  at the said place she was accompanied by her brother Jaspal  Singh PW-8, but PW-8 does not corroborate this fact. Therefore,  in our opinion, to base a conviction on the evidence of this  witness would be highly dangerous.  The next witness relied upon by the prosecution to establish  its case is PW-14 Gurbux Singh who is the maternal uncle of the  deceased. He in his evidence states that after two or three months  of the solemnization of the marriage, Devinder Kaur started  complaining that she was being harassed. This was confirmed to  him by his brother-in-law, who was the father of the deceased  Devinder Kaur. This statement again in our opinion is not  admissible because he has no personal knowledge about the  harassment meted out to the deceased Devinder Kaur but he was  only repeated what his brother-in-law had stated to him. Then  again there is a contradiction in regard to the timing of the  demand which according to the information of this witness was  two months of the marriage, while PW-8 specifically stated such  demands started coming in after the death of his father about  which we have already expressed our view herein above. PW-14

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

also states in his evidence that with the passage of time he learnt  that the accused had asserted for a share also in the property of  his brother-in-law which again is mere hear say notice of which  cannot be taken for basing a conviction. In the cross-examination  this witness stated that he had mentioned in his statement to the  police about the aforesaid three demands made by the accused,  but when confronted with his previous statement, it was noticed  by the court that no such statement was made. He also admits in  the cross-examination that he had no occasion to visit the in-laws  of Devinder Kaur in Ambala after her marriage and he did not  receive any letter or other message from Devinder Kaur or from  her father or her mother or any other relation of the deceased  intimating that Devinder Kaur was being harassed on account of  demand for more dowry. This admission clearly goes to show  that whatever he spoke in the examination-in-chief about the  demand made by the accused was not based on his personal  knowledge but on what he heard from others. He further admits  in his cross-examination that in the statement before the police he  did not say that Devinder Kaur committed suicide under pressure  of the accused because of the demand of dowry. In our opinion,  such evidence which is not based on personal knowledge of the  witness cannot be the foundation for basing a conviction. Having discussed the oral evidence led by the prosecution,  we will now consider certain circumstances relied by the trial  court to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged. These  circumstances have already been discussed briefly by us  hereinabove but since the trial court has placed considerable  reliance on these circumstances, we think it appropriate to deal  with the circumstances once again somewhat elaborately. One  such circumstance taken note of by the trial court is based on an  allegation made by PWs.7 and 8 that A-2 did not go to the  parental house of the deceased Devinder Kaur after her second  delivery for nearly 7 months which circumstance according to the  trial court, indicated the indifference of A-2 towards the deceased  because of the fact that the family of the deceased did not fulfil  his and his family’s demands. In our opinion, a perusal of the  evidence led by the prosecution in this regard itself shows that  this is a non-existent circumstance. The second child was born on  10.8.1985. According to the evidence of PWs.7 and 8, A-2 did  not come to their house for 7 months after the birth of this child  which would mean that till about March, 1986 A-2 did not visit  his in-laws nor did he take his wife and children to his own  house. This statement is clearly disproved by the documentary  and other oral evidence found in the record. Ex. P.28, a letter  written by deceased Devinder Kaur to A-2 which itself shows that  A-2 wanted her and the children to come back to the house of A- 2 at the earliest but she could not come because of the illness of  her first child. She indicated in the said letter that she would  come as soon as the child gets well. Thus a reading of this letter  Ex.P.28 shows that it is not because of A-2 that her stay was  prolonged in her mother’s house. Ex. DA a letter written on  10.3.1986 by PW-8 to A-2 shows that by then deceased and her  children were already in the house of A-2 and PW-8 wanted A-2  and his family along with the deceased and her children to attend  the wedding of his younger brother which was fixed for  23.3.1986. If really deceased Devinder Kaur and their children  were still in the house of her mother the question of PW-8  requesting A-2 to bring them for the wedding and conveying his  love and respect to them would not have arisen. As a matter of  fact it has come in evidence that the entire family of A-2 along  with the deceased had attended the wedding of the younger  brother of PW-8. Thus it is clear from the prosecution case itself  that the allegation of neglect as made out in the evidence of  PWs.7 and 8 is wholly incorrect.  Next circumstance relied by the trial court as noted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

hereinabove is that the accused had made a demand for a share in  the property of deceased Devinder Kaur’s father. Like the earlier  circumstance we have dealt with this somewhat briefly while  discussing the oral evidence but at the cost of repetition we think  it necessary to further discuss this aspect once again. The material  in support of this allegation is found in the evidence of PWs.7, 8,  13 and 14. While discussing their evidence we have noted that  even according to the prosecution none of these witnesses except  PWs.8 and 12, had ever been told by Devinder Kaur personally  about this demand. So far as PW-7 is concerned she stated that  she came to know of this demand through PW-12 Ajmer Singh  but Ajmer Singh has not supported PW-7 in this regard. PW-7  had not stated to the Police also in her previous statement about  this part of the demand. Therefore it is clear that this witness is  trying to improve her case for the first time in the court. Similar  is the evidence of PW-14 Gurbax Singh, the uncle of the  deceased who also makes a reference to this demand which he  allegedly came to know from the father of the deceased. This  witness too has not stated before the Police that such a demand  was made by the accused when his statement was recorded by the  Police. Therefore, even this witness has unabashedly tried to  improve his evidence before the court. So far as PW-13 Kulwant  Singh is concerned he too did not have any personal knowledge  of this demand and says in his evidence that he came to know of  this demand through deceased Devinder Kaur herself at Banur in  Rajpura Tehsil when he met her during a chance meeting there.  This witness says that at that point of time PW-8 the brother of  the deceased was also present but PW-8 does not support this  evidence of PW-13. That apart this witness was present at the  time when the dead bodies were brought to the hospital and when  the Police arrived and registered a case but did not volunteer any  statement to the Police. His statement was recorded only on  25.7.1986 nearly 2 months after the incident hence in our opinion  it is not safe to place any reliance on his evidence also. It is of  some importance to note here PW-8 the brother of the deceased  in his evidence does not state anything about this demand for a  share in his father’s property. Therefore in our opinion this  allegation of pressurising the deceased into demanding a share in  her father’s property, the prosecution has failed to establish.  Hence this circumstance also does not support the prosecution  case. The next circumstance relied by the trial court is the fact  that these accused persons did not attend the funeral of the  deceased after their bodies were released from the hospital. From  their absence at the time of the funeral, the trial court has drawn  an inference against the appellants which according to the court  indicated the guilty conscience of the appellants. The trial court  herein failed to take note of the fact that in the first information  report lodged with the police by the family of the deceased the  appellants and other members of the family who have since been  acquitted, were accused of murdering the deceased and her  children. A case in this regard was also sought to be registered.  PW-14 who is the maternal uncle of the deceased and also a  retired senior IAS Officer in his evidence stated : "My statement  before the police then was that Devinder Kaur and her two  children had been murdered by the accused by setting fire to  them. This was the information which was given to me that day."  In such a situation when a murder charge is levelled against an  accused, it is hardly possible to expect the accused to be present  at such funeral. Therefore, this circumstance also cannot be taken  as an incriminating circumstance or a circumstance which  corroborates the other evidence led by the prosecution against the  accused. It is based on these erroneous inferences drawn on unproved  facts and placing reliance on statements of interested witnesses

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

whose evidence has not stood the test of cross-examination, the  trial court came to a wrong conclusion as to the guilt of the  accused persons. It is to be noted that 3 letters Ex. P-28, DA and  DB which though not very proximate in time clearly show that  there was no demand as has been alleged by the prosecution by  the accused and the contents of the said letter clearly show that  the allegation made after the death of Devinder Kaur of dowry  demand or harassment leading to cruelty is unsubstantiated. For  all these reasons we are of the opinion that the trial court  committed serious error in coming to the conclusion that the  prosecution had established its case against the appellants.   There is no need for us to discuss the reasons given by the  High Court independently because we are in agreement with the  argument of learned counsel for the appellants that there has been  no application of mind by the High Court which is evident from a  perusal of the judgment of the said court. The learned counsel has  taken us through paragraphs after paragraphs of the judgment of  the High Court including the conclusions which, in our opinion,  are nothing but paraphrasing of the judgment of the trial court  without any application of mind whatsoever. So much so even  factual errors committed by the trial court have been faithfully  copied by the High Court e.g. the trial court at one place  erroneously recorded that the deceased Devinder Kaur had given  birth to two female children (See P.19 of the trial court) This  error is also copied by the High Court in its judgment (See Page  56 of the High Court). The High Court failed to notice its legal  responsibility of discussing the evidence independently and  recording its findings on the basis of such independent  assessment of its own, because it is the first court of appeal on  facts. The reasons given by us for rejecting the findings of the  trial court, therefore, should ipso facto apply to reject the finding  of the High Court if the same could be called a finding at all.

For the reasons stated, this appeal succeeds. The judgments  and sentences passed by the courts below are set aside. If the  appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. If  they are in custody, they shall be released forthwith.